#121
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Last edited by cmalak; 11-16-2014 at 03:58 PM. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Audiophile nonsense is redundant.
__________________
Wilson Alexia V; ARC Ref 6SE; ARC Ref Phono 3SE; Boulder 1160; Esoteric K1X; Artisan Fidelity Garrard 301 Statement; Ikeda 407; Koetsu Leopard, Coralstone; Shunyata Denali 6000T; Shunyata AC cables; Siltech Prince speaker cables; Siltech Princess interconnects, Avondale II phono. |
#123
|
||||
|
||||
Maybe I am getting jaded, but I have been watching this launch and all the changes with ARC the past couple of years and the only things I am taking away from this is that ARC has been purchased internally again with Charlie Rangle very involved, they saw a major opportunity in the Asian markets that is simply not very penetrated by them previously, took the opportunity of Tung Sol's new KT-150 and designed something to fit that market that is hungry for high end American HiFi that is much prettier (matter of opinion) than their typically classic lab gear look. Again, maybe I am being too negative, but I see this as nothing more than a market grab. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but the fact that they have left so much ambiguity to this is pretty ridiculous. Then again, even bad press is good press right? We are all talking about ARC and not another competitor for the time being.
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
What are we Americans obsessed with crappy and industrial looking garbage? The uglier the better. I mean I wouldn't want to have a good looking piece of gear in my house when I could have something that looks like crap; am I wrong? Why would I buy a D'Agostino it looks too beautiful, those are reserved only for those "sophisticated Asians with good taste". I was thinking of getting a nice looking car but decided, why? I am an American, I need to find something really hideous as the good looking stuff is meant for the "Asian Market" |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
There is a lot of great sounding gear that is too ugly to own. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
LOL |
#127
|
||||
|
||||
I agree with you. As I believe looks is part of the audio experience; if I do not like the look it will not make it in my system no matter how good it sounds.
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
ARC gear is not ugly by any stretch. It looks fine in its rack in my living room. But ARC gear does not look "rich" like Burmester, D'Agostino, Rowland and many others. I am not against bling, but part of the beauty of ARC has historically been its utilitarian but not unattractive looks at a fair price. You pay extra for bling. I'm not against that per se. But you do pay extra for it. That's a fact.
How many would pay $6,000 extra for a GS 150 over a Ref 150 if the circuit and parts were identical? Also, the GS 150 still looks closer to ARC with an Italian flare than bling. If you are going to charge me 6k more than a Ref 150, then show me a 6k chassis not a chassis that looks like it costs an extra $1,000.00 Just my initial thoughts. I reserve my right to reverse myself if I am impressed when I see the GS 150 in the flesh or if it sounds better than my ref 150.
__________________
Wilson Alexia V, ARC Ref 160M MkII,Ref 40,Ref Phono2SE, Shunyata Triton3, Typhon, Sigma PCs, ICs & SCs, Spectral SDR4000SV (w MIT IC), Belcanto PL1, Oppo 205, Marantz 2270 (tuner only):AudioDesk and VPI record cleaners, Furutech Demag & Destat; Stillpoint Apertures, TechDas AF 3S Premium with SAT CF9 and Kuzma 4pt 9" arms, Lyra Atlas Lambda SL, Dynavector XV1-t stereo and XV1-s mono carts, Miyajima mono, Shure V15VxMR, |
#129
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#130
|
||||
|
||||
I heard the G series a couple of weeks ago on sasha 2s. Best I ever heard the sashas sound. I really like the looks of original and g series - all good to me
|
|
|
Audio Aficionado Sponsors | |